Talk:Predicative expression

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Linguistics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I'm trying to remove a strange parenthetical note in the article "(= linking verb)". Prose doesn't usually have mathematical symbols. It would be clearer if it was expanded from this shorthand. Volunteer1234 (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear "copula = linking verb" literally would mean that copula (linguistics) and linking verb are exactly the same thing (if a = b then b = a). Volunteer1234 (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the best expression to use is "cf.", meaning "compare". The two terms 'copula' and 'linking verb' overlap to a large extent. They stem from different fields of linguistics, though. The term 'copula' is used more by serious linguists, whereas the term 'linking verb' is used more by pedagogues in the classroom. A Wikipedia editor who knows grammar well would know this and would hence have an idea how to edit the article in such a way to improve the article. --Tjo3ya (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All I wanted was that the lead use prose. Obviously both of us have an incomplete knowledge of grammar. Volunteer1234 (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some info re the presence of predicative expressions in logical predicates of

The reason I reverted your addition without waiting is practical: most of the time that unsourced information gets added, nobody bothers finding a source for it. That is why the burden should be on the person adding the information. I could wait for a while to see if anyone adds a source, but that would require me to keep track of dozens of articles each day. I'd add the source you mentioned myself, but I don't know anything about this subject. If you could give me the exact source and page, I could add it for you. Are you talking about the Kroeger (2005) source?--Megaman en m (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course Kroeger (2005) (with the mentioned page) is citable for the inclusion of predicative expressions in logical predicates of categorical propositions and monadic predicate calculus.--185.53.197.61 (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also Matthews (1981) (with the mentioned page) is citable.--185.53.197.61 (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]